Hello everyone and welcome to improve your thinking. I’m your host Kevin Browne and today I want to talk about differences. I want to make two points that may seem to conflict with each other but I think are actually complementary points. First, we are not as different as we think we are from one another. Second, the differences that do exist between us are beneficial, even necessary.
When I teach ethics one of the questions we discuss is: Does everyone have different morals? Nearly every student answers yes. I find this an odd and inaccurate answer. But, even when presented with evidence for the sameness of our moral principles they remain unconvinced and continue to focus on the differences to the exclusion of any focus on our common moral foundation. Inasmuch as this has some pretty important implications for our moral discourse I’d like to consider some possible explanations for this focus on differences. 1. We confuse surface disagreements for deeper disagreements. It’s easy to see disagreements when we discuss such issues as gun control, abortion, euthanasia, and drug legalization. Could those who disagree about these issues really share common moral principles? I think to have the conversation at all, they have to. Take the abortion debate. Both sides care deeply about the issue but are not as clear in their common moral agreement. But, it is there. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates believe in the moral principle: babies should not be killed for no good reason. I would go so far as to say that everyone agrees with this moral principle. The debate over abortion is not over a fundamental moral principle but rather some important factual questions such as whether the fetus should be classified as a baby. While this may be an oversimplification of the issue I think it remains the case that both sides share much in common when it comes to their fundamental moral principles. 2. We assume that having common moral principles would eliminate all debate. The claim is often made that if we all had the same morals, there would be no debate about such issues as abortion, euthanasia, etc. But, is this true? It is put forward as if it were true but rarely is any evidence provided for this claim. I think it turns out to be false. To illustrate consider an analogy to a simpler example; food. It is a universal human requirement that we need food to survive. But, even though this is a universal agreement, there is a huge variance in what counts as food from one culture to the next. There are even debates about what should and should not be eaten. What explains these differences? The environment is an important factor as well as cultural traditions. But, the point remains that even with a fundamental agreement there are still debates. The same holds true when it comes to morality. As the philosopher James Rachels pointed out, there are several important fundamental moral principles we all share concerning the care of the young, indiscriminate killing, and truth-telling. But, while we all share these fundamental principles we still debate over such things as what counts as proper care for the young, who can and who cannot be killed, and when it is permissible to lie. 3. We don’t want to dig deeper to see common underlying moral principles. It takes work and deep thinking to see the common moral principles that lie beneath the surface disagreements. It also takes a willingness to enter into a thoughtful dialogue. The only way we can really discover the common values we share is to slow down, ask questions, and listen to the answers we get. Ultimately this is a more valuable activity than trading insults and slogans. One activity I encourage my students to engage in comes from a TED talk given by Elizabeth Lesser titled Take the Other to Lunch. In this activity, you sit down with someone who shares a different view regarding some important issue and have a thoughtful conversation. As part of this conversation you ask them to share some of their life experiences and ask them the following questions: What issues deeply concern you? What have you always wanted to ask someone from the “other side?” The idea is not to persuade but to understand. Perhaps if more people tried this they would see the common morality hidden underneath the surface arguments. Another interesting perspective on the question of differences is offered by the research of social psychologist Shalom Schwartz who has concluded that there are not an infinite number of values. In fact, there are only ten: stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, benevolence, universalism, security, conformity, and self-direction. You can take the Human Values Test and see how you rank these values. Visit IDRlabs.com to see. But, how could there only be ten fundamental values? Aren’t there too many variations to believe that the number of fundamental values is so low? Not really. Of course, there are variations in how researchers have identified and counted values. But, the point is that there is a finite and fairly small number. What accounts for the variation then is how different people prioritize those values. One person might see security and conformity as their highest values whereas someone else might rate achievement and self-direction as their highest values. It’s not that they reject the other values entirely, but that they rate their importance as lower. So, when you are disagreeing with someone on some controversial issue remember that you both probably share many values in common but your disagreement is the result of the differences in how you rank those values. Of course, this won’t completely resolve the disagreement but it does allow for the possibility of communicating and finding common ground. It’s a small step but an important step in the right direction. It’s better than thinking the people who disagree with you have no values at all and are evil. When you adopt this mindset, there is little hope for communicating and coming together. When we see that the differences in our values are differences in degree and not differences of kind, we can also recognize the value in those differences. Without these differences, we succumb to what Matthew Syed calls “collective blindness.?” In his book Rebel Ideas: The Power of Thinking Differently, he offers one of the most compelling arguments for the importance of diversity I have come across. He argues for cognitive diversity by showing that “most of the challenging work today is undertaken in groups for a simple reason: problems are too complex for any one person to tackle alone.” We need the diversity of perspective and thinking that groups offer. But, not just any group will do. If you have a group comprised of people with similar backgrounds, education, and experiences your group is not going to be cognitively diverse enough to really generate the kinds of ideas and solutions needed. In practical terms, think about the groups we often see trying to address social problems. Groups comprised mainly of politicians. But, not politicians from a wide range of backgrounds. Politicians grouped according to allegiance to specific ideas. And, what’s worse, these groups purposely exclude people who value different ideas. These groups sort themselves according to how similar they are in how they rank order values and that virtually ensures that those groups will lack the cognitive diversity required to handle any of the complex problems we face. Recognizing this means recognizing that the idea of working together is not just a nice ideal to aspire to. It is an essential requirement for any hope of success. Of course, there's much more to say on this topic so stay tuned for next week’s episode where I discuss a very insightful new book by Mónica Guzmán that offers some practical tips for bringing people together. If you’ve enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to the podcast and visit me online at kevinjbrowne.com. Thank you for listening and I’ll see you on the next episode.
0 Comments
Hello everyone and welcome to improve your thinking. I’m your host Kevin Browne and today I want to talk a little bit more about influence. Specifically, the invisible influences that shape many of our beliefs and behaviors.
Let me paint you a picture of how you think about any given issue. You search for information, do research, look at all the facts, examine your own values, and in light of all that decide your position on the issue. You don’t allow irrelevant factors to influence your position. What you think about an issue depends on the evidence. You’re an independent thinker and you’re not easily swayed by the opinions of others. You certainly don’t let the fact that people you like or dislike express their views differently have any sway over your own deliberations. And, of course, whether you think about these things in the morning or the evening has no impact on your thinking. Neither does the fact that you haven’t had lunch yet or dinner or recently had a fight with your partner. Those things are clearly irrelevant to the issue at hand and you recognize that. Therefore, they have no influence on your deliberations. Does that sound about right? It sounds right for how I think about things! If you’ve been listening to my podcasts for a while you know what I’m about to say, don’t you? This view is almost entirely wrong. In reality, those quote-unquote irrelevant factors have more influence on your than you know. As Jonah Berger points out in his book Invisible Influence, “without our realizing it, others have a huge influence on almost every aspect of life. People vote because others are voting, eat more when others are eating, and buy a new car because their neighbors have recently done the same.” In fact, he points out that “99.9% of all decisions are shaped by others. In fact, looking across all domains of our lives, there is only one place we don’t seem to see social influence. Ourselves.” I want to examine this idea by discussing three examples of influence that he addresses in the book. Let’s start with one of the most famous studies of influence conducted in 1952 by Solomon Asch. In the study, he brought a group of students together and told them he was doing a vision test. In reality, he was testing the power of social influence and conformity. Only one student was actually a true subject. The others in the small group of 5-7 met with Asch beforehand and were instructed to give wrong answers. Students were shown a card with 3 lines of clearly different lengths labeled A, B, and C. They were then shown a second card with a line and asked to identify which of the three lines matched this one. The clear answer was that line C matched. As each student was asked for their answer the ones instructed to give the wrong answer did so. Finally, the test subject was asked for their answer. To Asch’s surprise he found a large portion of test subjects conformed to the others in the group who have the wrong answer. In fact, around 75% conformed. Let’s be very clear here. In a case where the correct answer was crystal clear, 75% voiced the wrong answer due to the fact that others had answered that way. The need to conform overcame the evidence of their own eyes. Of course, this raises a number of questions. If conformity in a case like this is so high what about in cases where the correct answer is not as clear? Is there anything that can be done to break this spell of conformity? Before addressing the first question, let me say something reassuring about the second one. In further trials of this experiment, one of the students was coached to dissent from the group and give a different wrong answer. In such cases, conformity from the test subject dropped dramatically. In some cases, the conformity rate dropped to zero. This demonstrates the positive power of influence which I’ll come back to. What about cases where the answer is less clear. In his book, Berger examines such cases. Consider this example: “Suppose you were asked to vote on a new welfare policy. It offers $800 a month for families with one child and an extra $200 a month for each additional child. In addition, it provides full medical insurance, a job training program, $2,000 in food stamps, extra subsidies for housing and daycare, and two years of paid tuition at a community college. Benefits are limited to 8 years, but the program would guarantee a job after benefits ended and would reinstate aid if a family had another child. Would you be in favor or opposed to such a policy?” Not surprisingly when researchers posed this question, most people who identified as liberals favored the policy, and most who identified as conservatives were against it. But, here’s the twist. When Stanford professor Geoffrey Cohen asked this question he presented some conservatives with one additional piece of information: he told them that the policy was supported by 95% of House Republicans and that Republican lawmakers felt that the policy provides sufficient coverage without undermining a basic work ethic and sense of personal responsibility.” What happened when they were asked about their support? The conservatives loved the policy idea. Simply being told that other like-minded people supported it was enough to influence their view. Now, don’t think this influence just affected the conservatives! When the liberals were given a stringent welfare policy and told that other Democrats endorsed it, they favored it as well. And, when people were asked about whether the fact that other Democrats or Republicans favored the policy in question they said that barely mattered at all. And, as Berger points out, they were wrong. People’s attitudes weren’t just slightly nudged as a result of being told what other like-minded people thought about the policy, they were completely flipped! And, if you’re like most people who find out about these studies you are now saying to yourself something like this: Sure those other people were influenced. But, that doesn’t happen to me! And, just like those other people, you are wrong about that. You are being influenced. So am I. But, is this necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps not. Let’s look at some of the benefits of such influence. In his book Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, Bernard Williams points out the importance of setting priorities when addressing ethical values. I think this makes an important point about our implicit ability to recognize right and wrong. Some actions are immediately recognized as right and wrong before any moral deliberation. This turns out to be a good thing. As Williams puts it "an effective way for actions to be ruled out is that they never come into thought at all, and this is often the best way. One does not feel easy with the man who in the course of a discussion of how to deal with political or business rivals says, 'Of course, we could have them killed, but we should lay that aside right from the beginning.' It should never have come into his hands to be laid aside. It is characteristic of morality that it tends to overlook the possibility that some concerns are best embodied in this way, in deliberative silence." In many cases, that deliberative silence is the result of social influence. There are a number of other examples of potentially positive influence as well. In fact, every example of invisible influence which seems negative can be turned into something positive. We are influenced by any number of factors in our environment including our neighbors, friends, and acquaintances. So, it makes sense to choose wisely where possible. We are not only influenced by the opinions of others but their actions as well. So, if you want to improve your health, hang out with people who are already healthy and practice good health habits. Let those positive habits influence you. Another good example of the potential for positive influence is discussed by Victoria Harrison in her book Happy by Design. The homes we live in and the way we decorate them can have an influence on our health, happiness, and well-being. This influence can be positive or negative so learning how to shape our environment to realize the positive benefits makes sense. Another good resource for more information on this is Ingrid Fetell Lee’s book titled Joyful The Surprising Power of Ordinary Things to Create Extraordinary Happiness. It’s funny how we all feel as if we are independent in our choices and beliefs. We believe that we arrive at our preferences, tastes, friends, partners, and opinions through the conscious deliberate choices that we make. But, we don’t. We are influenced in ways we can barely recognize. So, it makes sense to learn about those and shape them when we can to be more positive. If you’ve enjoyed this episode I’d like to influence you to subscribe and visit me online at kevinjbrowne.com. Thanks for listening and I’ll see you on the next episode. Hello everyone and welcome to Improve Your Thinking. I’m your host kevin browne and today I want to talk about influence.
I teach courses in logic on a regular basis. Most any logic course presumes that reasoning is sometimes fallacious but that it is possible to improve your reasoning ability and as a result improve your decision making as well. In addition, by understanding how to evaluate arguments you can not only become better at spotting defective ones but also better at constructing them for yourself. In other words, studying logic will improve your power to influence. As it turns out, that view is wrong. Perhaps a better way to put it is that it’s an incomplete picture of our thinking and what you need to focus on to improve your influence. To learn what else you need to know, I highly recommend Zoe Chance’s new book Influence is Your Superpower: The Science of Winning Hearts, Sparking Change and Making Good Things Happen. As a logic professor, there are several points in the book that resonated with me that I want to focus on particularly in the second chapter titled Influence Doesn’t Work the Way You Think. She discusses Daniel Kahneman’s idea of two systems of thinking from his book Thinking Fast and Slow which he describes as “System 1” and “System 2.” She helpfully relabels these as the “Gator” and the “Judge.” The Gator “is responsible for every cognitive process that’s quick and requires negligible attention,” including things like emotions, quick judgments, and pattern recognition as well as any habitual behaviors. The label comes from the observation that much of a gator’s behavior is “habitual and relatively effortless.” That describes much of our thinking as well. The Judge “is responsible for every cognitive process requiring consternation and effort.” Things like planning, calculating, and the work my students do to solve proofs in symbolic logic. This is how we mostly view most of our thinking. We are sifting through facts and evidence and making judgments. What’s interesting is that while we tend to think that most of our decisions involve deliberate, rational thinking which would be done by the Judge, in reality, the Gator is responsible for much of our behavior and thinking, perhaps “up to 95 percent of our decisions and behaviors.” Understanding this point is key to understanding our own thinking and how to improve it. It’s also a crucial insight to improve your ability to influence others. Why would you want to do that? Well, as Daniel Pink pointed out in his book To Sell is Human, we are all in sales. Think about how much of what you do involves persuading and convincing others in some way. I know as a teacher I am trying to persuade my students to value the class material and learn it. In other words, I’m trying to influence them. So, if most of our thinking is done by the gator below the level of our “rational mind” does that mean influence amounts to manipulation? Not at all. Of course, some people do try to influence by using manipulation and she discusses how to deal with these tactics in her chapter titled Defense Against the Dark Arts. If our thinking is done by gators and judges then the manipulators are sharks “willing to bully, cheat, manipulate, and deceive people to get what they want.” But, that is not what she advocates in the book. Instead, she offers some simply useful tools to improve your ability to influence while building relationships with people. A good example of this is in her chapter on Charisma where she outlines two paradoxes of charisma. Trying to be charismatic has the opposite effect and the best way to attract other people’s attention is by giving them yours. An important key to influence is not manipulating people but connecting with them. The same goes for negotiations which most people see as an adversarial process where you’re trying to get something from someone else while keeping as much for yourself as possible. But, in reality, the best negotiations are collaborative and allow all parties to gain something. Doing this successfully involves asking the “Magic Question” which she describes as her favorite influence strategy. It’s one of my favorite from the book too. The question? “What would it take…?” Starting your question this way naturally invites the other person to think in terms of solving a problem together. It fits nicely with a point she makes earlier in the book. If you want “to become more influential just ask. Ask more often, ask more directly, and ask for more.” The worst outcome is that the other person will say no. But, you’ll be surprised how often people will say yes. Or at least meet you halfway. Sometimes, their answer will even exceed your expectations. But, you’ll never know until you ask. Most logic textbooks define the subject of logic as the science of evaluating arguments. An implicit part of this approach is that there is a distinction between the logical and the psychological. In fact, most logic textbooks will include a reference to the psychological in a chapter on logical fallacies which are mistakes people make in their reasoning process. The implication is that while these psychological tactics may be effective, they should not be used since they violate the principles of good critical thinking. Indeed, some psychological tactics do just that and should not be used. But, Zoe Chance’s book shows us that not all psychological insights are manipulative. To be a good critical thinker, you need to understand how your own thinking works. To have influence you need to understand how to connect with people in a genuine and authentic way. As a professor, her book has given me many useful insights that I will be integrating into my logic and critical thinking courses. As a musical artist, I think I can apply her insights to help my music reach a larger audience. As a human being, who wants to win hearts, spark change and make good things happen, this book will help me unlock my superpower to influence for the better. It can help you unlock your superpower to influence as well. An interesting aspect of influence is the willingness to change your own mind. Influencing others really amounts to wanting to get them to change their mind. It’s much easier to do this if you are open to changing your mind. Unfortunately, Changing one’s mind has a bad reputation. We ridicule politicians as “flip-floppers” for changing their mind. We over-value the idea that one should stick to their beliefs regardless. I’ve had students tell me that there are certain opinions they will believe no matter what. Presumably, that includes evidence that clearly shows their opinion to be wrong. It occurs to me that this attitude really makes you less influential. I mean how open would you be to listening to someone and being influenced by them if they told you that nothing could persuade them to change their mind? This relates to Zoe chance’s point in the book that in order to attract other people’s attention you have to give yours. If you want to influence others you need to demonstrate that you can be influenced as well. Another interesting perspective on being open to changing your mind is offered by Adam Grant in his book Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know, where he says: “Who you are should be a question of what you value, not what you believe. Values are your core principles in life–they might be excellence and generosity, freedom and fairness, or security and integrity. Basing your identity on these kinds of principles enables you to remain open-minded about the best ways to advance them. You want the doctor whose identity is protecting health, the teacher whose identity is helping students learn, and the police chief whose identity is promoting safety and justice. When they define themselves by values rather than opinion, they buy themselves the flexibility to update their practices in light of new evidence.” We should encourage people to update their views and practices in light of new evidence. If someone is not doing this, it means they are not learning anything new. It also means they are not going to be very good at influencing others. If you enjoyed this episode I hope you will subscribe and join me online at kevinjbrowne.com. Thanks for listening and I’ll see you on the next episode. Hello everyone and welcome to improve your thinking. I’m your host Kevin Browne and today I want to talk about cogent biases and fallacies.
Here’s an example of something you’ve probably done before. You’re shopping at Amazon.com and you have $30.00 worth of merchandise in your shopping cart. When you check out your total (with shipping) comes to $37.00. You can get free shipping if you spend at least $35.00 so you look for another item to add to your cart. You find one priced at $12.00 and add it. Now your total (with free shipping) comes to $42.00. So, have you saved any money? No! You’ve spent more merely to get free shipping. This is a perfect example of what economists call irrational behavior. You were trying to save money and in the process ended up spending more. The interesting thing about this example, and many others we could cite, is that they are predictable. That is, we all are susceptible to cognitive biases, but our responses to them are not random. We are, to use the title of Dan Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational. A common viewpoint students express in the classes I teach is that everyone thinks differently. Within a narrow range of options, this is true. But, in the larger scheme of things, it is very definitely false. Ariely’s research shows that the kinds of mistakes we make in our reasoning process are not random and not all that variable. In fact, the entire idea of cognitive biases is based on the idea that our thinking patterns have more in common than they do differences. There should be nothing very surprising about this since we are all wired up the same as human beings. Our brains are configured pretty much the same and the variations occupy a relatively narrow range. So, if you’re like most people you don’t think you’re like most people. But, you’re wrong about this! Here are some other things you probably think about yourself that you are quite likely wrong about. Don’t feel bad about this because you’re not alone. We’re all wrong about many of these things and we’re all wrong in basically the same way. You probably think you’re an above-average driver. In fact, the majority of people think this. But, it can’t be the case since “above average” is a category the majority cannot fit into. You may also think you have above-average intelligence and are above average in how you look. Again, most people think this way and most cannot be right about it. If you’re like most people you probably overestimate how well you can plan things, underestimate how much time you will need to get a given task done, and procrastinate more than you think you do. What behavioral economists like Dan Ariely do is to study how we are predictably irrational and how to improve our decision making given our propensity to succumb to cognitive biases. Finally, if you're like most people you easily fall prey to confirmation bias. This is one of the most important cognitive biases to understand and guard against. It is the propensity we all have to only look for evidence in favor of our beliefs and ignore the evidence against our beliefs. This occurs in most areas of debate. If you follow political discussions you have seen this (and probably also fallen prey to it). You know the arguments for your belief and you think they are good arguments. You also "know" that the arguments for the other side of the debate are bad arguments and the people who hold these beliefs are ill-informed. But, this is what the confirmation bias leads us to think. In fact, most people don't have a clear understanding of both sides of whatever issue they are debating. They don't realize that there are good arguments for the other side and that people hold these positions for good reasons. That doesn't mean that all arguments are equal and that there aren't bad arguments. But, we tend to see the bad in ideas that other people hold, not our own. This can be very dangerous, especially when this bias leads us to make bad decisions in our own lives or our social policies. In light of this, let’s consider some common mistakes in reasoning; what we call fallacies. We should attend to these for two reasons. First, we want to be able to identify these mistakes if they occur in arguments we hear. Second, we should familiarize ourselves with fallacies to avoid committing them ourselves. I won’t address all of the fallacies usually covered in a logic course but here are four of the most common. 1. Ad Hominem: (Sometimes referred to as argument against the person) In this fallacy, the arguer attacks the person instead of attacking the person's argument. It is often very difficult to keep these two separate. Does the following seem like a good argument? Bill Gilmore has argued for increased funding for the disabled. But nobody should listen to that argument. Gilmore is a slob who cheats on his wife, beats his kids, and never pays his bills on time. In fact, it is not a good argument because instead of criticizing Gilmore's argument for funding the disabled, the criticism is about Gilmore himself. In fact, it is irrelevant to his argument whether he does any of those other things. While they are reprehensible, the fact that these things are true does not necessarily mean his argument for increased funding for the disabled is a bad argument. If you listen to political arguments you often hear people criticize others for their motives, call them evil, or just insult them. All of these are examples of the argument against the person fallacy. While this can be an effective tactic for motivating people who already agree with you, it does nothing to address the real arguments on any given issue. 2. false dichotomy is a fallacy that relates to arguments that contain two choices. For example, Either I get into law school or my life is over. This would be an example of a false either/or statement. Usually, it is obvious what conclusion should be drawn so often the argument is not completely stated. Many political issues are framed as either/or choices. You’re either pro-life or pro-choice, you’re either for gun control or against it. framing arguments this way is very persuasive but also often misleading as they hide the possibility of a third option that might be both more reasonable and more achievable as a solution to the problem. 3. Begging the question: occurs in two ways. First, it can occur when you leave out a questionable premise in your argument, a premise that is required for the argument to work. Here’s an example from a logic textbook, “It’s obvious that the poor in this country should be given handouts from the government. After all, these people earn less than the average citizen.” This argument is not answering a key question. In other words it is begging the question. In this case the question is: Just because the poor earn less than the average citizen, does this imply that the government spoiled give them handouts?” Notice, that the answer to this question could be yes or no. The problem with the argument is that the question is not addressed at all and so no examination of the evidence either way has been considered. A second way this fallacy is committed is by arguing in a circle by having the conclusion of your argument serve as one of the premises as well. This is often referred to as circular reasoning. Here’s another textbook example: Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts. This argument might sound persuasive until you examine it closely. To say that something is justified is the same as to say it is legitimate and appropriate. Claiming that something is legitimate and appropriate is not proving that something is justified merely restating it. 4. Red Herring: In red herring what usually happens is that the critic just drifts away from the original subject; hoping that the audience will forget what the original argument was! Here's an example: Environmentalists argue that the use of pesticides on fruits and vegetables is dangerous to our health. But, fruits and vegetables contain many essential nutrients that can prevent disease and promote health. According to the FDA, one of the best sources of vitamin C is orange juice, and vegetables like broccoli contain a healthy dose of minerals such as iron. Clearly, fruits and vegetables are important to our health. Now, what was the original argument? It was about pesticides. But, then look what happens. The critic proceeds to change the subject to talk about vitamins and minerals. This has nothing to do with whether the environmentalists are correct about the dangers of pesticides! Classic red herring fallacy. There are many other fallacies but these are some of the most common ones you’re likely to hear in political debates. Identifying them is an important step in the process of thinking like a philosopher which means that you ask more questions and demand better answers. You also demand that arguers stop using these fallacies and address substantive arguments and evidence. If you’ve enjoyed this episode I invite you to subscribe and visit me online at kevinjbrowne.com. Thanks for listening and I’ll see you on the next episode. Philosophy is sometimes seen as an abstract discipline that can be mastered only through reading obscure and difficult-to-understand texts. But, philosophy can provide us with useful practical tools to improve our lives and addresses problems that arise. Here are some excellent examples of philosophical ideas that can improve your life by improving your thinking.
Questions: Philosophers ask questions. It’s what they do best. But, not every question is philosophical. A good philosophical question digs below the surface to examine underlying assumptions that are not often acknowledged. One of the best examples of such questioning was Socrates. He was fond of asking questions like, “What is beauty?” “What is justice?” His questions seem so easy to answer on the surface but as a dialogue with him would continue the questioning would soon reveal hidden assumptions and contradictions. One of the best uses of this kind of questioning is where there seems to be complete agreement. This may seem counter-intuitive but in many such cases, that agreement is masking an underlying lack of clarity which can be explored by some strategic Socratic questioning. Doubt: The 17th-century philosopher Rene Descartes famously began his philosophical investigation with doubt. He attempted to doubt everything to discover if there could be a foundation of knowledge that was indubitable. He found that foundation in the very act of doubting recognizing that if he was thinking he had to exist. That could not be doubted. This is what he meant by his famous pronouncement that “I think, therefore, I am.” The 18th-century British empiricist David Hume continued this tradition of doubt with his skeptical approach to knowledge. He advised that the wise person will “proportion his belief to the evidence.” If the evidence for a claim is weak we cannot be justified in holding a strong belief about it. In a world of “fake news” and numerous sources of information, this advice can come in very handy. We don’t have to doubt everything, but a healthy dose of skepticism is often warranted when presented with claims that seem too good or too outlandish to be true. Categories: The 18-century philosopher Immanuel Kant began his philosophical investigations by trying to address Hume’s skepticism. In doing so, he hit upon an insight that still influences psychology today. His idea was that our minds act as a filter through which we perceive sense experience. These filters he called the “categories of the mind.” They provide the structure for our knowledge of sense experience and include things like space, time, and causality. We impose an order on sense experience that may not really be there. In practical terms, we each bring our own unique perspective to whatever problem or situation we are facing. Remembering this can be very useful. We too often assume that people see the world just like we do and while there are some common elements in our perspectives as human beings, there are also important differences that must be addressed in order to ensure good communication. Wants and Needs: If you want something, does that mean you need it? For many people, the answer seems to be yes. What’s worse, is the all too common mentality that if I want something, I deserve it. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus provided a useful antidote to this kind of thinking. For Epicurus, there are three categories of desires. The first is natural and necessary and includes the basics: food, clothing, shelter, as well as friendship, freedom, and thinking. We require these to be happy. And, for Epicurus, these are all that we require to be happy. But, there are also natural and unnecessary desires (wants that become confused with needs). These include many of the luxury items in our life; fancy food, clothing, big houses, fancy cars. All of which we desire but do not require to be happy. The problem occurs when we believe we need these things, purchase them, and then find that we have to work to afford them and in the process discover we are no happier as a result of acquiring them than we were without them. Third, Epicurus identifies the unnatural and unnecessary desires for power and fame. These may be at the root of our belief that natural but unnecessary desires are really needs. After all, if you strongly desire fame and power, you will deduce that you need those things that Epicurus classifies as natural but unnecessary. Attitude: The Greek and Roman Stoic philosophers were masters of cultivating a good attitude towards life, especially life’s problems. The Stoics recognized that it was important to distinguish between what you can control and what you cannot control. Surprisingly few things are in your direct control, chief among them is your attitude. You cannot control what other people think or do but you can control your attitude towards them and their actions. As Epictetus pointed out, “People are not disturbed by things, but by the views which they take of things.” The Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius echoed this sentiment saying, “The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts.” The Stoics also offered useful advice for dealing with adversity. We must recognize that problems are an inevitable part of life. But, we can cultivate an attitude that meets these problems as challenges. If we can see problems as opportunities to cultivate a proper attitude and as tests of our virtue we can better cope with what difficulties arise in the course of our life. As you can see, philosophical ideas can be very insightful and practical. While some philosophers write abstract difficult-to-understand texts, many others specifically wrote and taught to help people improve their lives. As Epicurus once said, “Vain is the word of a philosopher which does not heal any suffering of man. For just as there is no profit in medicine if it does not expel the diseases of the body, so there is no profit in philosophy either, if it does not expel the suffering of the mind.” |
kevin j. brownePhilosopher | Educator Archives
July 2022
improve your thinking: The course |